I have always wanted to become a physicist since a child. Physics was and still is to this day the most astonishing and fascinating field to me. Chemistry was probably my next offering being that chemistry and physics lend to each other greatly with many amazing theories and information. Biology always remained last on my list. I could never see myself getting into it. I always thought studying the Earth was limiting and boring, while studying the mysteries of space and alternative realities was the thing that science fiction was made of. Just exciting! It wasnt until after high school that I started to realize that though the field may be not as exciting or extraordinary as the others, biology has the most applicable uses in everyday life.

I'll explain. As I got older, the only places I was finding employment was the medical fields being that illness is probably the number one detriment to our species. Suffering from many diseases within myself, I took up a personal interest within medical knowledge to understand and heal my own conditions. With a biology degree, the doors open to so much more.

With a biology degree one can choose to go to the chemical side of things and study biochemistry, or one can choose to go the opposite way into the medical field where the opportunities are endless. Also with the current trend in our society, medicine is probably the number one priority for our society, only perhaps after the economy or environmental protection. However one can also go into environmental science, all of this with a simple biology background.

With chemistry, most of the opportunities with a biology degree are available with a chemistry degree, however more medical jobs lean towards the biology aspect than the chemical aspect. Since medicine is the strongest sector in the market today, this alone gives biology the edge over chemistry.

With physics the applied science and engineering aspects of science are opened up, which are also very lucrative fields. However physics has little application outside of this and academia, as far as I know.

With all being said, it would be my guess that since our most important issues and highest demand for solutions reside in the medical field and environmental studies, I would think biology is the one field that has the most applicable and practical uses for our time, as well as being the most broad science.

This doesnt mean I cant still study physics or chemistry in the meantime, since all sciences interconnect. However I think with a specialty in biology, one can find more uses to apply this knowledge to in the real world, rather than making ones life devoted to theoretical conjecture. It sounds fun to explore the ends of the universe and learn mysteries of life no man has dreamed of, but in reality, exploring the edge of the universe wont really solve the issues going on in our own neighborhoods. People dying from vast diseases while the environment crumbles literally above our heads. I think there are more important issues that our society recognizes, which is why certain sectors of the job market are in much higher demand then the others.

Of course these are all opinions I have gathered through my own research and information. Which field of science do you think is the most important for our species, has the most real life application in society, if it be though priority, job demand, or necessity, and which field is the broadest and opens up the most realistic opportunities for future application?

"The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

Without carbon, we wouldn't exist, but without oxygen we couldn't breathe. They are all interconnected at some level.

My opinion is that mathematics are the basis for all of science. Without that foundation, we still be in caves scratching on walls.

That clearly wasnt the question. It is not which science is the most important, but which is the most important for our generation today? Physics may have been important 200 years ago because we weren't advanced then. But our problems have changed being that the economy is in the dumps, and general health and well being are also in a similar state. This is why doctors and health care practitioners are in the highest demanding careers and science jobs are in so very low demand. They are just not realistically tangible or relevant to our society today being that they dont answer the problems we currently have. Mathematics may be more pure, but mathematics is not solving our cancer crises or our obesity epidemics. A more relevant science is needed for that. It is not about purity here but priority.

It is not which science is the most important, but which is the most important for our generation today? Physics may have been important 200 years ago because we weren't advanced then.

So importance is based upon our ignorance of the topic? In that case, I'm not comfortable suggesting that computer science is more valuable than neurology or that astrophysics is more important than cellular chemistry.

Originally Posted by tariqblaze

This is why doctors and health care practitioners are in the highest demanding careers and science jobs are in so very low demand.

That doesn't always suggest importance so much as politics.

Originally Posted by tariqblaze

They are just not realistically tangible or relevant to our society today being that they dont answer the problems we currently have. Mathematics may be more pure, but mathematics is not solving our cancer crises or our obesity epidemics. A more relevant science is needed for that. It is not about purity here but priority.

This seems almost ignorant to me. I'm not sure if you worded it the way you intended.

Without mathematics, computer science doesn't exist. I'd say that makes it pretty important. To a 13 year old girl, whatever sciences made the newest iPhone possible are probably the most important sciences.

Maybe the issue is that you don't understand how the sciences are applied and you can't see the importance in your daily life. I assure you, there are some scientists out there you haven't heard of, whose jobs you wouldn't think are important, but without them your life would be much different.

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin

Plumbing is clearly more important than medicine. Without plumbing, we would be unable to keep ourselves clean, and we would be swimming in a sea of human waste. The physicians could never keep up with the illnesses. Then there is transportation engineering. Physicians would not be much good to us if we could never make it to the doctor's office.

Plumbing is clearly more important than medicine. Without plumbing, we would be unable to keep ourselves clean, and we would be swimming in a sea of human waste. The physicians could never keep up with the illnesses. Then there is transportation engineering. Physicians would not be much good to us if we could never make it to the doctor's office.

I think you are looking too deep into it. Everything is important but what takes the greatest priority? Can we live without engineers transportation or the other way around? Yes you need cars to get to the doctors office, but which is more important. Cars to get to the doctors office or the doctor being there in the office in the first place? Without a doctor, there would be no need for a car. Also, cars arent needed if the doctor can use a horse or walk to the patients, or the community is centered around the doctor, however with cars, there is no other way around this dilemma.

I think you are looking too deep into it. Everything is important but what takes the greatest priority?

I think you're missing the point.

What we're saying is that no one science or scientific pursuit is more important than another because each one requires aspects of another. If we get rid of one part, the other part fails. It's like asking what part of the internal combustion engine our car can function without.

Plumbing is clearly more important than medicine. Without plumbing, we would be unable to keep ourselves clean, and we would be swimming in a sea of human waste. The physicians could never keep up with the illnesses. Then there is transportation engineering. Physicians would not be much good to us if we could never make it to the doctor's office.

To be honest, I might have to agree with you. But this thread was not about which is the most important craft in life, it is about which field of science is most relevant.

A doctor takes the back seat to a nutritionist or dietitian because most illnesses are preventable. That would mean preventive medicine is more important than a physicians practice. A farmer would also be more important than a dietitian or nutritionist because without the farmer, there would be no food for the nutritionist to recommend eating. So the farmer definitely takes priority. With a good farmer, a nutritionist nor a doctor may be needed at all, so that would make a farmer the most important cog in the healthcare wheel.

But again, this is about science. Which field of science is most important or applicable. Biology is more related to the nature of food so I would say biology is the closest and most important science a farmer should be familiar with. Next would be chemistry and physics may not even be needed.

Also..on a side note. A plumber is not a necessity but a convenience. There was a time when men survived without toilets. You may be too young to remember that time but I assure you it existed. Modern plumbing systems are not detrimental to society and without plumbers, people should live just fine.

I think you are looking too deep into it. Everything is important but what takes the greatest priority?

I think you're missing the point.

What we're saying is that no one science or scientific pursuit is more important than another because each one requires aspects of another. If we get rid of one part, the other part fails. It's like asking what part of the internal combustion engine our car can function without.

I think you have missed the point yet again. That is exactly the question I am asking. Which part of the internal combustion engine can we live without...so to speak. If our society faced an economic or destructive collapse tonight, which occupations, skills, crafts, fields must we bring back first, which can take the back seat, and which can be completely omitted altogether.

As far as basic crafts, all ancient skills that were necessary for survival in ancient times must take precedence. Without knowledge of the land and ancient tool making, a doctor nor a scientist would be able to re-create anything.
Farming, agriculture, carpentry, iron-workers etc.

After basic necessities are fulfilled, the next priority would be developing methods for convenience. That is where we come in. We are the secondary "necessities" in life. The luxuries that multiplied in such abundance, they became necessities in and of themselves. They may have also replaced basic primary necessities to the point that some may believe they are primary necessities, forgetting the former history.

Just as primary necessities have priority, secondary necessities do as well. With primary necessities, water comes before food, and food comes before snacks. Water is the most important necessity to a human body, and without it, a man would die. Food is also a necessity, but it is the second most important necessity of a human functioning body. The body can survive much longer without food than water. The third necessity isn't even really a necessity at all but fits more in the luxury/convenience/secondary necessity category than the primary. That is the snacks and sweets. The body can and does live without it, but the body craves and wants it.

After food will come clothing for basic body temperature regulation, and so on and so on. I think you get the picture. Yes without clothing, you could die with only food. But which is a greater priority in a life or death situation? Clothing or nourishment? And which can be completely omitted in precedence for another necessity until all necessities are obtained and convenience is allowable? Food > clothing except when it is Snacks vs Clothing. Then it becomes food > clothing = clothing > snacks.

It is about priority and it is these very questions that mankind have had to ask and answer since the dawn of civilization in order to thrive and move on. These are necessary questions that have answers, it is just on our society to properly think about them.

I think you're missing the point that I'm pointing out you missing the point again yet again.

We can "live" without any science. That living will take place in caves and last an individual 30 or 40 years, but it's living.

You seem to be failing to understand the idea that all of our fields of study in the sciences are interlinked in some way or another. They do not come in layers. If you peel away science in layers, you simply revert us slowly back through time.

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin

I think you're missing the point that I'm pointing out you missing the point again yet again.

We can "live" without any science. That living will take place in caves and last an individual 30 or 40 years, but it's living.

You seem to be failing to understand the idea that all of our fields of study in the sciences are interlinked in some way or another. They do not come in layers. If you peel away science in layers, you simply revert us slowly back through time.

Everything is interlinked. But not everything is equal. Studying the space time continuum is not as important than studying epidemic causes for diseases. In fact, if we never knew about the space time continuum, we would live fine and still have all the knowledge we need to study epidemic causes for diseases. In other words, some parts of science are connected but not directly connected nor have any real effect over the other. Astrophysics is definitely miles apart when dealing with anatomy. If we striped away astrophysics, we could still know all we need to know about the human body. Maybe not all but the most important things. Yes astrophysics may tell us more and advance our society, but there is a reason the NASA space shuttle programs got scrapped. When there are people starving and people are dying and they cannot meet their basic needs, advancement in life doesnt take priory to immediate emergencies. Some people in our world ARE living in caves. Just because you enjoy life in your comfortable American home doesn't change the fact that our society isnt too far from the stone ages. It is only because people want to advance to the next stage when they forget we haven't even completed or perfected the level we are on today.

Everything is interlinked. But not everything is equal. Studying the space time continuum is not as important than studying epidemic causes for diseases.

That is your opinion. There are astrophysicists who might disagree. You could say launching people into space isn't important, but without it we might not have Velcro or the memory foam mattress that has helped my bad back recover and we certainly wouldn't have cell phones or GPS. Who knows what byproducts of certain endeavors have impacted us in meaningful ways.

Originally Posted by tariqblaze

but there is a reason the NASA space shuttle programs got scrapped.

Budget and political incompetence.

If we were worried about actual waste, we wouldn't spend hundreds of times NASA's budget building explosives to drop on countries the majorty of Americans can't locate on a map.

Originally Posted by tariqblaze

It is only because people want to advance when they forget we haven't even completed or perfected the level we are on today.

I don't know what your idea of perfect is, but I would suggest that we cannot improve upon what we currently have unless we progress along multiple fronts.

To a more general point, what is the purpose of this thread? You seem to be trying to hint at something seeing as you refuse to accept the answers you asked for in the original post.

No one here is inept enough to suggest that we don't need astrophysics because most of the people here are clued in enough to realize that without aspects of one science, there is no telling how other sciences would be impacted.

A doctor takes the back seat to a nutritionist or dietitian because most illnesses are preventable.

Huh?
WTF makes you think nutritionists have any relevance?
They don't (generally) do science.
It's not a regulated discipline (in most countries) 1.
It's - to an alarming extent - a crackpot branch of "alternative medicine".

1 For example Ben Goldacre's dead cat has the same "qualifications" as the UK's most "famous" nutritionist. And yes, I did write DEAD cat.

I'd like to say that computer science is the most important because we live in an increasingly electronic age.

But then, where would we be without medical science?

So I'm going to combine the two and say that cybernetic research and biotechnological engineering (is that a real thing?) is the field with the most applications for real life. If not now, then in a couple of decades. Is that cheating?

I think you're missing the point that I'm pointing out you missing the point again yet again.

We can "live" without any science. That living will take place in caves and last an individual 30 or 40 years, but it's living.

You seem to be failing to understand the idea that all of our fields of study in the sciences are interlinked in some way or another. They do not come in layers. If you peel away science in layers, you simply revert us slowly back through time.

You want us to advance life so that we can live to the average age of 100? Well guess what. Many people in our world are dying before the age of 7 and we cant seem to understand how to prevent these events from happening. How can you think about living to the age of 100 when we still have people dying way earlier than the life expectancy of the people of the stone age? This is what we call disproportion. Our society is disproportionate and then we call it advanced civilization. How advanced are we when some of our people jump higher than ever yet at the same time, many of our people will jump lower than previously known.

Our modern civilization obtained all time highs that followed with all time lows. It is this disproportion which will eventually tear our entire civilization down if balance is not restored. It is this disproportion which ended the era for every other great nation. It should be no different for ours. Prioritization to restore balance is the only way out. Advancements in scientific academia and innovation isnt the way out but only a sure fire way to increase this disparity.

The 100 million dollar grant spent to defeat world hunger will further deepen the hungry. Instead that money should be spent directly on food. Spending 100 million dollars on research in space stations leaves 100 million dollars not spent on hungry mouths. We are advancing our nations while effectively pulling them back at the same time. The priority is not the space station but understanding how to effectively feed the world and save them from starvation. That is the priority. The hungry, the sick, the weak, not the galaxies.

That is your opinion. There are astrophysicists who might disagree. You could say launching people into space isn't important, but without it we might not have Velcro or the memory foam mattress that has helped my bad back recover and we certainly wouldn't have cell phones or GPS. Who knows what byproducts of certain endeavors have impacted us in meaningful ways.

I assure you this is not my opinion but a fact. Saying everything is interconnected is as cliche as saying everyone is created equally. But that is not true, everyone was created differently. Some created stronger than others, and some with a more important role in society than others. We all have equal rights, but we are clearly not all equal. Nothing in life is. Everything comes in grades.

And again, you are basing facts on possibilities. Possibly we learn something new from space to create a new invention that saves peoples lives. Possibly not. We dont base facts on possibilities, but only on certainties. It is certain that people need food, we give them food. After enough people are fed, if we still find that there is problems, then we research. But research is not created yet until food is given. And that is the problem with our society, we are backwards and work the other way around. Research then food instead of food then research.

Budget and political incompetence.

If we were worried about actual waste, we wouldn't spend hundreds of times NASA's budget building explosives to drop on countries the majorty of Americans can't locate on a map.

I guess you havent taken a look at our economy. It is in the dumps. The government knew that we did not have enough money to be funding trips to the moon when people dont have jobs nor food to eat nor places to sleep. They shifted the priority to the people who are going hungry, not the stars. That is why the programs got scrapped. Money issues and priority. There are greater issues in our society. Economy, global warming, and we know what to do. If we only spend our money on these solutions instead of spending our money on uncertainties and "possibilities".

I don't know what your idea of perfect is, but I would suggest that we cannot improve upon what we currently have unless we progress along multiple fronts.

It is not about improving but completing. We need to complete what we have. We created the innvention of cars, now how do we figure out how to get one to everyone? But instead we dont do that. We only figure out how to make the car go faster. People die and society gets left behind in technological advancements.

Heres another fun fact since we are on the topic of cars. How is it that we created the car, and found out that it was a bad invention because global warming, and now we are trying to create a new fuel for the car that we have no idea what new issues will arise. This is the nature of our society. We go from one invention to the next and never truly completing either one. The car hasnt even been perfected nor complete but now millions of dollars are already going into flying cars. We havent even figured out how to cure the land car yet let alone a flying car? It is all about priorities and even a baby would know the meaning of it.

To a more general point, what is the purpose of this thread? You seem to be trying to hint at something seeing as you refuse to accept the answers you asked for in the original post.

I want your honest opinions about which is most important. Your cliched "everything is important" is a very vague and irritating answer and if this was a test in school, you would have failed.

No one here is inept enough to suggest that we don't need astrophysics because most of the people here are clued in enough to realize that without aspects of one science, there is no telling how other sciences would be impacted.

I never said we dont need astrophysics, I am only suggesting that astrophysics is not as important to our general crises in our current lives. Maybe when we fix some of our current issues in our lives, we may have the time and money to advance in astrophysics to improve on our initial design. Today just isnt that day.

I agree. War in today's times is an industry. The money spent on the warfare of our country alone is ridiculous. I would say that military expertise is not as great of a priority when you have families that were hit so hard by the recession that there is not enough for a meal tonight for their entire families. Back in the ancient times, a mans priorities were always food and if there were hungry mouths in the family, searching for a meal to feed that one would take precedence over preparing for a tribal invasion. A tribal invasion was a possibility which may or may not have happened, but the family member starving to death was an inevitability. Imagine if a man spent 100 dollars on axes and arrows to defend his family and his children against a possible tribal invasion, only to find he has no more money left to feed his children and his children die. His village never gets attacked and now all he has left to show for is military weaponry that will never even be used at the cost of his children's lives. That is the similitude of our nations today. Saddening when you think about it.

And you appear to be basing your argument on some hypothetical idealised vision of the world as you think it should be.
Life isn't far.
Shit happens.
Humans aren't perfect.
Nothing goes according to plan.
We don't specialise: part of being human is exploring possibilities and trying satiate our curiosity.

And you appear to be basing your argument on some hypothetical idealised vision of the world as you think it should be.
Life isn't far.
Shit happens.
Humans aren't perfect.
Nothing goes according to plan.
We don't specialise: part of being human is exploring possibilities and trying satiate our curiosity.

Humans arent perfect but we can perfect..Completion is perfection. Our society is far from that.

You're asking a question. I'm answering it. The answer isn't satisfactory to you and you refuse to accept my explanation for my answer.

You: "What is the least important science?"

Me: "There isn't a least important science."

You: "You're missing the point. What is the least important science?"

Me: "They all require one another in order to function."

You: "You're being cliche."

If you're only willing to accept your answer as the correct one, why bother asking the question?

Does a practitioner need to know thermodynamics to know if the blood levels are low? No. Yes technically it may be a form of physics, but when we are on the subject of getting a degree, science in universities arent taught as interconnected fields, they are taught separately. Maybe I should reformat my question.

Which science degree is most important to specfically learn and expertise in for todays time?
Back in the day, scientist may have not learned science as we do today. Nowadays, everything is categorized.

So ill reformat the question.

Which science degree is most important to gain an expertise in for todays time?

If you get a biology degree, you will have to know chemistry and physics no doubt about it, but it will more geared and focuses on biological issues, Biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics, but we are not here to discuss semantics. If you cannot give a specific answer please you have no need to respond to me because I am not interested in arguing. Thank you.

Ok well lets agree to disagree. I am a deeply religious person and I use science to back my faith. In my religion we are taught that God is perfect and he only created perfection. Since we are the creations of God, we are perfect creations and hence the tools and teachings that God gives us are perfect therefore when we use Gods perfect tools, we create perfect works.

Perhaps you are an atheist that do not believe in a perfect god or perfect creation. Again this is a science forum and I have no desire to argue with you about religious truth. You can find out the truth when you die and meet your maker.

Do you at least believe that we should aspire to be better? There are clearly problems in our society that our people neglect and don't even attempt to correct. Poverty, hunger, crime, etc. How come there is no scientific theory or invention to cure our issues of society yet we spend more time trying to create faster cars? What is a faster car good for if there is no place decent to go? Why doesn't scientist aspire for this or make this a greater priority? You rather just explore unknown realms that are clearly far from the issue? I doubt we will find the cure for mans crimes in the outskirts of a galaxy.

Which science degree is most important to gain an expertise in for todays time?

If you get a biology degree, you will have to know chemistry and physics no doubt about it, but it will more geared and focuses on biological issues, Biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics, but we are not here to discuss semantics. If you cannot give a specific answer please you have no need to respond to me because I am not interested in arguing. Thank you.

There is no scientific field that can be viewed as the most important in the modern era.
Various scientific disciplines operate together and support each other with their findings.

"The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

Which science degree is most important to gain an expertise in for todays time?

If you get a biology degree, you will have to know chemistry and physics no doubt about it, but it will more geared and focuses on biological issues, Biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics, but we are not here to discuss semantics. If you cannot give a specific answer please you have no need to respond to me because I am not interested in arguing. Thank you.

There is no scientific field that can be viewed as the most important in the modern era.
Various scientific disciplines operate together and support each other with their findings.

In other words, it is not what you learn, but how you apply it?

That sounds very sweet, and I agree with you. But again if the world collapsed tomorrow, and we were dealing with a life or death situation, and every second counted, and the people needed practical answers on what to do right now, telling them "do whatever you want because it is not what you do but how you apply it", the people would overthrow you, kill you, or abandon you.

Instead of giving them a cliche "everything is interlinked" answer, you should be telling them how to find water, the science of purifying water to make sure it is not contaminated, the science of searching for food and what science would be most applicable to that tasks. Yes every science can give the same answer, but not every science is the most direct on the answer nor has equal and decisive information.

In other words, you wouldn't put a physicist to work on a man bleeding from internal wounds. A physician or someone with a biological degree could be of better assistance. In those crucial moments where the man bleeds to his death, more specific knowledge will be required, and the more specific to the situation, the more important the field to the given situation. Not every field is important to every situation but some are more important to certain situations over others.

The question I was asking was which is the most important for our modern era. In olden times when disease and plague was common, biological medicine would have been the most important science to learn in order to deal with the most relevant problem of their time. In our time, our issues revolve around different issues such as the economy, illnesses, obesity, crime, and global warming or environmental issues. Biology and medicine are good for the medical issues, environmental science would be good for the environmental issues. That would only leave the economy and crime. Which science would be most beneficial to solve these issues specifically?

Just dealing with our obesity epidemic in our country which is something of a modern day plague. Would you send a mathematician to solve the obesity epidemic or someone with more specific training towards obesity? If so then which scientist would you send to solve these contemporary issues? It cant be "anyone". It has to be a certain someone.

I think I already said I wont be arguing religious issues on this forum. Your comments are to you and yourself only.

Yet haven't you been arguing that we really aren't? That we're essentially making a mess of things?
Haven't you also said (and I quote): Humans arent perfect.

No humans arent perfect because we have the freedom of choice. Our innate nature is perfect but the choices we make may not be, but they can be.
In other words, our bodies, with all our diseases, ailments and mistakes, we are still perfect creations. The good and the bad are in perfect alignment. The only imperfection in this life is the imperfect choices we make that we know are wrong. Nobody is judged for honest mistakes, as mistakes are what makes us perfect creations. It is the crimes we commit against our own selves which denotes us to imperfection.

Therefore when I say that humans aren't perfect, I mean the choices we make are not reflections of our Perfect creator. Our perfect creator gave us the perfect tools and the most perfect instructions on which choices we should make. Once we deny these instructions, turn away and make choices that go against these perfect choices, we devalue ourselves to perfect creations that choose to make imperfect choices.

Even though imperfection, or crime is a creation of good, it would still technically make imperfection a perfect creation. But no man in his right man would delve in imperfection knowing how horrible it feels on the basis that it is still a perfect creation. Imperfection is a perfect creation no different than the fire is a perfect torment. But no man in his right mind would bath in either.

I find it highly amusing - not to say somewhat incongruous - that you point out that this is a science forum and then proceed to make religious claim.

I can make a religious claim on any forum I please as it relates to the topic, however as I have said, I can make religious claims but have no desire to argue for or against any of them. They are for informative purposes of relevant nature only. If you disagree this is none of my concern.

I think you'll find there are many attempts to correct these, or at least alleviate them.

Many but how many? As many as the attempts the government makes on correcting a countries threat or supposed threat against them? As many as we spend on space projects or other issues of not immediate or known concern?

What are the numbers exactly?
One poster pointed out that it is 100 billion on warfare for every 100 million on science projects. What are these numbers for other issues such as the ones I mentioned? If the numbers do not equate, that would mean there is an imbalance in our societal concerns. More importantly an imbalance in our society PRIORITIES.

Well for one thing the "social sciences" are still being developed: the soft sciences are (currently) harder than the hard sciences.

Harder? Can you explain what you mean by harder?
Harder as in more complicated to figure out?
If so, then this may be my point. We have more complicated issues that we have yet to understand yet our focus is not in these issues, but on issues we have already mastered yet we want to advance on further. We have been to the moon. We mastered that. Why spend millions on trying to get to the moon faster when there are still issues that are more complicated and relevant that we have not mastered nor figured out?

It is this disproportion and imbalance that troubles me. Our priorities are not straight. Our priorities should be our lives first and the well being of it. The necessity. The luxury of making our lives more comfortable comes next but not before the necessity.

Every scientist or businessman in the world can tell you that their own occupation and studies are the most important and can "possibly" solve our issues. I think that is what scientist have been doing for years to get grant money. It troubles me that our society is so selfish that we care more about grant money than the real well being of our society. What did you get into science for if you continue to lie to yourself for your own selfish pursuit and motives? A true scientist does not hide the truth of his findings but sacrifices his studies for the advancement of the entire nation.
You know that your speculations are farfetched. We all know this. It is a shame that so many scientist cannot be honest about it themselves. That 100 million dollar grant that was given to you you know in your heart should have went to a more useful and more plausible cause. Whether it be another field of scientific study, a social science, or a medical study. Anything that has more plausibility of being corrected and having the most benefit for our issues today.

I guess when I asked this question I was expecting honest answers from my countrymen. Perhaps I was expecting too much. Perhaps I had too much faith in my people when I started this thread. I should have no one to blame but myself.

I think I already said I wont be arguing religious issues on this forum. Your comments are to you and yourself only.

Yet you thought it fit to use religious arguments.

No humans arent perfect because we have the freedom of choice.

The one doesn't follow from the other.

Our innate nature is perfect

That's a supposition. (Presumably based on the religion you're not going to discuss).

In other words, our bodies, with all our diseases, ailments and mistakes, we are still perfect creations. The good and the bad are in perfect alignment. The only imperfection in this life is the imperfect choices we make that we know are wrong. Nobody is judged for honest mistakes, as mistakes are what makes us perfect creations. It is the crimes we commit against our ownselves which dennotes us to imperfection.

Utter crap.

Therefore when I say that humans arent perfect, I mean the choices we make are not reflections of our Perfect creator. Our perfect creator gave us the perfect tools and the most perfect instructions on which choices we should make. Once we deny these instructions, turn away and make choices that go against these perfect choices, we devalue ourselves to perfect creations that choose to make imperfect choices.

Even though imperfection, or crime is a creation of good, it would still technically make imperfection a perfect creation. But no man in his right man would delve in imperfection knowing how horrible it feels on the basis that it is still a perfect creation. Imperfection is a perfect creation no different than the fire is a perfect torment. But no man in his right mind would bath in either.

Oh look! More religion (that you aren't going to discuss).

I can make a religious claim on any forum I please as it relates to the topic

Except that this is, as previously pointed out, a science forum.

They are for informative purposes of relevant nature only.

How is it "informative" if you can't support those statements? If they're unsupported then they can't be shown to be true, therefore the "information" content is minimal.

More importantly an imbalance in our society PRIORITIES.

Societal priorities as decide by YOU.

Harder? Can you explain what you mean by harder?
Harder as in more complicated to figure out?

Yes. More complicated, less susceptible to investigation.

yet our focus is not in these issues

Yet there is focus on these issues.
I'm open to correction but I believe that, in the UK at least, social science graduates quite comfortably outnumber physical science graduates.

Our priorities are not straight. Our priorities should be our lives first and the well being of it.

In your opinion.

What did you get into science for if you continue to lie to yourself for your own selfish pursuit and motives?

Offensive crap.

A true scientist does not hide the truth of his findings but sacrifices his studies for the advancement of the entire nation.

Ooh, and redefinition of "scientist".

You know that you speculations are farfetched.

My speculations? Which ones?
Are they as far fetched as your insupportable claims about how "perfect" we are?

We all know this. It is a shame that so many scientist cannot be honest about it themselves. That 100 million dollar grant that was given to you you know in your heart should have went to a more useful and more plausible cause. Whether it be another field of scientific study, a social science, or a medical study.

Oh dear. Do you know what my last university degree course was?
Shall I give you a little clue?Social sciences.
Now please stop making stupid, false and generalised accusations.

I guess when I asked this question I was expecting honest answers from my countrymen. Perhaps I was expecting too much. Perhaps I had too much faith in my people when I started this thread. I should have no one to blame but myself.

Yeah well, when you are the one that decides (arbitrarily) what "honest" means it's hard for anyone else to match up, isn't it?
Your definition of "honest" appears to be "agrees with you", meaning that "disagrees with you" is equivalent to "dishonest".
Hardly rational.

If our society faced an economic or destructive collapse tonight, which occupations, skills, crafts, fields must we bring back first, which can take the back seat, and which can be completely omitted altogether.

I'd like to suggest forging to make shoes and how to examine a horses teeth to check for health; only because it's closer to science I nominate veterinary medicine as most important.

Does a practitioner need to know thermodynamics to know if the blood levels are low? No.

But without the knowledge of thermodynamics, a product of an understanding of chemistry, would we know how to check "blood levels"? Without knowledge of thermodynamics, could we have developed the technologies which even allow us to perform such procedures?

To assume so seems, to me, a bit presumptuous.

Yes technically it may be a form of physics, but when we are on the subject of getting a degree, science in universities arent taught as interconnected fields, they are taught separately. Maybe I should reformat my question.

Originally Posted by tariqblaze

Which science degree is most important to specfically learn and expertise in for todays time?

I still don't understand why you think one is more important or essential than another. The most important science is relative to the scientist.

How could anyone even begin to suggest that one is more important than another? That would take a level of hubris I do not posses.

Originally Posted by tariqblaze

Which science degree is most important to gain an expertise in for todays time?

The most important science degree you can earn is the one in the field about which you are passionate. I became a geologist. I have very little interest in cellular chemistry, but I am very glad other people do because their work is extremely valuable. My hope is that they can also appreciate the value of my work even if they have no interest in getting involved in the field.

Originally Posted by tariqblaze

If you get a biology degree, you will have to know chemistry and physics no doubt about it, but it will more geared and focuses on biological issues, Biology is chemistry and chemistry is physics, but we are not here to discuss semantics. If you cannot give a specific answer please you have no need to respond to me because I am not interested in arguing. Thank you.

This isn't arguing. This is my answer. I'm trying to get you to explain to me why you think I am wrong, but you just insist on changing the subject and now asking me to cease participating.

Consider this; this is a science forum and science revolves​ around substantiated debates. It is the crux of what we do.

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin

I have always wanted to become a physicist since a child. Physics was and still is to this day the most astonishing and fascinating field to me. Chemistry was probably my next offering being that chemistry and physics lend to each other greatly with many amazing theories and information. Biology always remained last on my list. I could never see myself getting into it. I always thought studying the Earth was limiting and boring, while studying the mysteries of space and alternative realities was the thing that science fiction was made of. Just exciting! It wasnt until after high school that I started to realize that though the field may be not as exciting or extraordinary as the others, biology has the most applicable uses in everyday life.

I'll explain. As I got older, the only places I was finding employment was the medical fields being that illness is probably the number one detriment to our species. Suffering from many diseases within myself, I took up a personal interest within medical knowledge to understand and heal my own conditions. With a biology degree, the doors open to so much more.

With a biology degree one can choose to go to the chemical side of things and study biochemistry, or one can choose to go the opposite way into the medical field where the opportunities are endless. Also with the current trend in our society, medicine is probably the number one priority for our society, only perhaps after the economy or environmental protection. However one can also go into environmental science, all of this with a simple biology background.

With chemistry, most of the opportunities with a biology degree are available with a chemistry degree, however more medical jobs lean towards the biology aspect than the chemical aspect. Since medicine is the strongest sector in the market today, this alone gives biology the edge over chemistry.

With physics the applied science and engineering aspects of science are opened up, which are also very lucrative fields. However physics has little application outside of this and academia, as far as I know.

With all being said, it would be my guess that since our most important issues and highest demand for solutions reside in the medical field and environmental studies, I would think biology is the one field that has the most applicable and practical uses for our time, as well as being the most broad science.

This doesnt mean I cant still study physics or chemistry in the meantime, since all sciences interconnect. However I think with a specialty in biology, one can find more uses to apply this knowledge to in the real world, rather than making ones life devoted to theoretical conjecture. It sounds fun to explore the ends of the universe and learn mysteries of life no man has dreamed of, but in reality, exploring the edge of the universe wont really solve the issues going on in our own neighborhoods. People dying from vast diseases while the environment crumbles literally above our heads. I think there are more important issues that our society recognizes, which is why certain sectors of the job market are in much higher demand then the others.

Of course these are all opinions I have gathered through my own research and information. Which field of science do you think is the most important for our species, has the most real life application in society, if it be though priority, job demand, or necessity, and which field is the broadest and opens up the most realistic opportunities for future application?

I have read this entire thread before replying and have often found it helpful in a dialogue to restate the OP at regular intervals to keep the conversation from wandering completely afield.

As with several posters, I find it challenging to even considering isolating just one science from the others as there is often much more overlap and integration than many of us may be aware of. Reading this thread brought to my mind the pyramid of Maslow, which attempts to prioritize human needs in a somewhat linear manner.

As a person who has resided in a rather harsh northern climate for many decades, I would have to go with biology, personally, for the simple fact that it takes a broad knowledge of the biology of humans, animals, plants and the seasons to survive and to thrive living here. Let's choose an entirely plausible situation...an ice storm that took out the power for three weeks until it could be put back on line, troubled with highway closures etc.

How would people manage?

I belief that an awful lot of sciences would be required to cope with the emergency although most would be related to biology through one path or another, not the least of which would be psychology, to help people stay calm and focused through the emergency.

Therefore, I would select biology for the broad base it offers to many other sciences.

Re the original post.I'm a geologist...mostly have worked in biostratigraphy (paleontology)However, the division between most sciences is arbitrary. 'Biology' is mostly a subset of chemistry...chemistry a subset of physics.What I do is biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Except nobody really breaks it down. It's 'geology'

As for most opportunity. Most people don't use their science degree so do what you have an interest in. I like being outdoors, Nature, etc. No way I was interested in medicine or related areas. Others prefer lab work. Still others teaching. Follow a discipline that matches your 'likes' in life.